1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

1366 x 768 Most Popular Screen Resolution, Overtakes 1024 x 768: StatCounter

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Apr 12, 2012.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,222 (11.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,580
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    1366 x 768 pixels overtook 1024 x 768 as the most popular screen resolution worldwide, for computers, according to the latest statistics by StatCount. This new dominant screen resolution is a particularly important statistic for web-developers, as they can now make their designs more optimized for at least 1366 pixels-wide screens. 1920 x 1080 and 1680 x 1050 hold less than 5% of the market-share each. The growth of 1366 x 768 could have been propelled by dominance in the notebook market (across almost all market-segments), and entry-level PC monitor market. The interactive screen resolution stats graph can be found here.

    [​IMG]

    The press-release by StatCounter follows.

    Screen Resolution Alert for Web Developers
    A major milestone in screen resolution sizes has been passed according to independent web analytics company, StatCounter. The company's research arm, StatCounter Global Stats reports that for the first time 1366x768 has become the most popular screen resolution worldwide, having overtaken 1024x768.

    "The data reflects a continuing trend of users moving to larger screen resolution sizes," commented Aodhan Cullen, CEO, StatCounter. "The screen resolution size people are using is a critical factor for developers when it comes to web design, particularly in the case of fixed width web pages."

    Since StatCounter began its tracking of screen resolution in March 2009, as a free service to developers and other users, 1024x768 has been the dominant screen size globally on the web (excluding mobile*). 1024x768 has fallen from 41.8% in March 2009 to 18.6% in March 2012. Over the same period 1366x768 has grown from 0.68% to 19.28%.The third most popular size is 1280x800 at 13%.

    Cullen also said that while StatCounter Global Stats provides information on worldwide and regional trends, monitoring the specific screen resolutions being used to view individual sites is also very important.

    StatCounter (http://statcounter.com/) provides free website traffic analysis. This allows web developers to capture screen resolution stats on their own and on their client websites in real time. Other information available includes search terms, download stats, exit links and other data.

    StatCounter Global Stats data is based on over 15 billion page views per month (4 billion from the US) to the StatCounter network of more than three million websites.
  2. Rowsol

    Rowsol

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    566 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...

    A 1080p monitor is $150. No reason not to have one.
  3. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,222 (11.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,580
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    The average consumer doesn't want to spend >$100 on a monitor, and >$300 on a computer.

    TPU is optimized for 4K screens, Eyefinity, and 3DVision Surround, btw. ;)
    hellrazor, Mussels, freakshow and 4 others say thanks.
  4. Chevalr1c

    Chevalr1c

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,130 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,339
    ^ True.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  5. JKnows

    JKnows New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2012
    Messages:
    23 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2
    The sad thing we buy because laptops do not have other option. I hate 1366x768 resolution.
  6. Vulpesveritas

    Vulpesveritas

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Messages:
    383 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Location:
    USA
    Well, given that nearly every laptop sold in retail has a 720p screen with it, and most "normal people" buy laptops nowadays, and usually in retail, I can't really say it's surprising. Outside of business, art, and gaming, higher resolutions aren't exactly as much of a push. Especially for budget buyers.

    So eh, not surprised. Plus smartphones are starting to have 720p screens too. With any device sub-4.8" having a retina display @ 720p, other than for marketing it would be a waste of processor resources for the most part to push past that resolution, so 720p may remain a norm for a while.
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  7. specks

    specks New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    441 (0.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    88
    I am right on the spot. Im okay doing my stuff at this resolution
  8. Chevalr1c

    Chevalr1c

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,130 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,339
    I am still at 1280x1024, my laptop is 1440x900. Both 17"
    hellrazor and acerace say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  9. xBruce88x

    xBruce88x

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,356 (1.36/day)
    Thanks Received:
    545
    yea i'm still using 1280x1024 as well, same on my laptop (thought it'll do 1400x1050).

    @Vulpesveritas Wouldn't 1366x768 be 768p?
  10. hhumas

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2011
    Messages:
    551 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Location:
    Islamabad
    all mini notebooks use same resolution that is why its growing faster and faster
  11. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,430 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    873
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Actually there is.

    A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.

    With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card and you might already have problems in newer games which will have lower fps already. Yes, even 1080p will eventually get to the point of the above two resolutions, but it will take some more time.

    I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...

    So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...
    Prima.Vera, acerace and Chevalr1c say thanks.
  12. Kantastic

    Kantastic

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    5,140 (2.71/day)
    Thanks Received:
    993
    I'm on an 11.6" 1366x768 screen and think it's perfect. There's no way I'm getting a bigger laptop without at least 1600x900 like the Zenbook.
  13. rainwilds New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    18 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Finally web designers can start making sites a little wider than the 1000px default.
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  14. acerace

    acerace

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    252 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    57
    Location:
    Malaysia
    I second this. With my aging PC, low res is more preferably.
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  15. Derek12

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,096 (0.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    163
    my desktop: 1280x1024 perfect for me
    my netbook: 1024x600 idem
  16. scooper22

    scooper22 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    108 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Location:
    Central Europe
    yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200 :banghead::banghead::banghead:
    craigo says thanks.
  17. NC37

    NC37

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,169 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    259
    I spent a decade in 1280x1024...then I jumped to 1680x1050...oh it is such heaven!

    If you must, you must, but you don't know the glory of high res till you've really used it and seen the difference. Heck mine isn't even high anymore! One of these days I'll shift to 1080 but for now, I'm content.
  18. TheLostSwede

    TheLostSwede

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    928 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    163
    Wow... talk about stragglers...
    I'm running 2048x1152 + 1920x1200 and I feel like I always run out of space...
    And no, I don't have a super powerful graphics card, but that "old" 6870 plays all the games I play just fine at 2048x1152...
  19. gumpty

    gumpty

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    744 (0.33/day)
    Thanks Received:
    134
    Location:
    Auckland
    Oh NOOOOOESSSS!!! This is TERRIBLE news!

    There are so many websites currently optimised for width at 1024, which means my monitor can display two browser windows side by side perfectly.

    Don't change this, developers. Please don't do it!
    TheLostSwede says thanks.
  20. TheLostSwede

    TheLostSwede

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    928 (0.26/day)
    Thanks Received:
    163
    I guess I'm not the only one with a 2048x1152 display then :toast:
    gumpty says thanks.
  21. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,430 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    873
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Lets don't exaggerate things...

    What glory? Only difference between my and your image is the physical size in inches diagonally. With all the horsepower to spare from the gfx card, i can use 4x FSAA easily, but most of the time i use even higher values. I have 16x AF enabled all the time by default for like ages. So the jaggies are total history and i see just a smooth detailed image.
    Chevalr1c says thanks.
  22. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,026 (4.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,364
    I thought 1280x1024 was something
  23. Isenstaedt

    Isenstaedt New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    211 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    22
    1280x1024 here too. I'm looking forward to get either a 1440x900 or a 1600x900 monitor on of these months.
  24. Goodman

    Goodman

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,519 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    324
    Location:
    Canada/Québec/Montreal
    Are you kidding me?
    I7@3.8ghz
    6GB ram
    6950
    You wouldn't have any problems playing games at 1920x1080 , C'mon! what are still doing with a 4:3 monitor?
    You actually loosing a lots of the extras games visual not to have it played in widescreen , i would never go back to 4:3 monitor as far as games & movies are concerned

    With my system i can play Warhead full quality @ 1920x1080 & Crysis 2 a little less they both do about 30f/s which is fine by me but worst case scenario i could always choose a lower resolution even if not native res. it will still look great in games

    Anyhow having a nice system like your it's shame not to have a better monitor to go with it...:ohwell:
    Wrigleyvillain says thanks.
  25. eidairaman1

    eidairaman1

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,026 (4.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,364
    Gimmer 1920x1200

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page